# 2012-076 Careers, Component Transfer (CT), Enrollment Offers, Pay, Regular Officer Training Plan (ROTP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–08–31

The grievor, a Corporal (Cpl) in the Primary Reserve (P Res), subsequently was transferred to the Regular Force (Reg F) in the rank of Private and questioned the rank and rate of pay he was awarded on transfer.

Although the issue initially brought before the Board for review was that of determining the appropriate rank and pay upon transfer to the Reg F, the Board was first obliged to determine whether the file could be considered a proper grievance.

Canadian Forces (CF) pay authorities replied to a number of queries from the grievor regarding his rank and rate of pay upon transfer from the P Res to the Reg F, finally indicating that, following three pay adjustments, his pay account was deemed to be correct. The grievor disagreed with this conclusion, suggesting that he should have been transferred to the Reg F in the rank of Cpl, the rank he held in the P Res. As a result, in early 2012, he addressed a memorandum to the Director Military Careers (D Mil C) requesting a review of his rank on transfer.

For unexplained reasons, the grievor’s chain of command erroneously registered the administrative request to the D Mil C as a grievance and sent it to the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA) for assignment to an initial authority (IA). The error was compounded by the DGCFGA intake process which accepted the memorandum as a grievance and forwarded it to the IA who also treated it as a grievance. Because the grievor refused to grant the IA additional time to adjudicate, the file was returned to the DGCFGA who then referred it to the Board.

The Board found that it could not review the merits of the case because the grievor’s submission to the D Mil C was not, in fact, a grievance. The memorandum failed to meet the requirements of section 29 of the National Defence Act (NDA) and chapter 7 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) in that it did not use the word “grievance”, made no reference to section 29 of the NDA or chapter 7 of the QR&O, was not addressed to the grievor’s Commanding Officer, did not describe any specific “decision, act or omission”, and made no request for a particular redress.

Having found that the submission to D Mil C was not a grievance, the Board concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The Board recommended that the DGCFGA forward the file to the D Mil C in order that the requested review may be carried out in a timely manner. The Board also recommended that the grievor be advised that he retains the right to grieve the results of the D Mil C review should he disagree with the result.

Finally, the Board recommended that those responsible for treating the memorandum as a grievance be reminded of the requirement to follow the grievance regulations as set out.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–27

The FA did not close the file as recommended by the Committee and chose to accept the memorandum submitted as a grievance. After reviewing the grievance, the FA concluded that the grievor was treated fairly and in accordance with the applicable rules and policies at the time of his component transfer.